We may also question the validity of the 80% votes for enbloc. Doesn't it seem like the clauses were written to push the Owners to agree to the enbloc, because if they object, they faced financial loss (penalty) and have to pay double contribution. If this is the future of enbloc in Singapore, all hell will break loose, ie, any guy can set up a sale committee and force me to sell my condo too, and if I object, I have to pay a penalty and be punished with double contribution.

This is disgusting news. If this GIlstead Court sales goes ahead, that means in the future all Sales Committee can use the same penalty clause to intimidate owners to agree to the enbloc sale. The court should examine, was the Sale Committee able to reach the 80% owners approval before they added the penalty clause? Was the 80% reached because at least some Owners felt intimidated and wanted to avoid the penalty and financial loss of $27,000? If they were unable to reach 80% before the penalty clause, that means the penalty clause has achieved it's purpose - ie. to intimidate people to sell! It is totally wrong for the objectors to be penalized $27,000 for voicing their objection. What has Singapore come to? In the future, any Tom Dick and Harry can use the same penalty clause to threaten people to agree to enbloc. If you don't agree, then you pay $27,000 or whatever sum I name right???? What is the penalty for? For punishing objectors or to go into Sale Committee's pocket?